Kevin Marx

First of all, I obviously like to type, so if you don't like reading then GFY and move on to the next post.

True, but having money and not putting it where your mouth is does make you a bit of a hypocrite. My biggest problem with the left is that the ideology tends to be towards the betterment of society... however, it's the betterment of society off of the backs of everyone else.

I don't take a politician seriously that is uber wealthy and wants to make wealthy people pay more taxes but finds a way to ensure that he doesn't or hasn't paid them (insert choice of left wing or RINO politician here; I actually do have a beef with conservatives as well, it just doesn't tend to be with taxes, although they like to tax too). If a politician were to show by action and say..... I have not been taxed enough and I think I should pay more; not to political parties, not to campaign funds, but to the general fund of the United States of America... and then show off the receipt of that payment that shows them meeting the taxation they desire without deduction or loophole or anything else; then that's a politician I will take seriously. Otherwise, they are just blowing smoke and they desire everyone else to pay at that level but themselves.

Remember that the laws tend to favor those that create and vote for them.

Tony. You and I have spoken many times before. I like you. I think you are a good guy, so this is not personal at all, just commentary against your commentary.

Companies operate within laws, just as individuals do. If you don't like the laws, change your representation. I'm a moderate-conservative and I want my representation changed.

There is too much cronyism in politics and I think the idea gets spilled over into where the money flows (the economy; i.e. capitalism). Too much you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Yes, we have some unethical and moralistically lacking corporate leaders. I'm all for prosecuting the shit out of them. However, the OWS movement seems to be attacking people that are successful within the law as well. My question is when does success become too great? When is it not acceptable? Why do we as a society get to choose that anything above a certain profit margin is unacceptable?

Boards of Directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders; the shareholders are the owners of a company. I have no problem with that.

Companies take jobs overseas because the taxation and the return on investment are better than they are in the USA. Why have the work done here if it can be done elsewhere at a better value? That's just simple economics. Change the laws and the jobs come back. Make the environment for the jobs more conducive here than there.

Actually, he probably is and in fact he's probably in the top 25% of the 1% as well.

A few years ago, my wife and I were doing quite well due to her sales position and receiving commission checks quarterly. Due to that influx of monies, we were considered part of the top 1% of earners in the United States. It was only because we made over $300K at the time (2003). I don't know what the threshhold is today, but due to the economy, my assumption is that the number would be similar. I'm also guessing that Moore eclipses that number by a fairly wide margin.

I agree with the first paragraph you state, although I don't believe that the entire OWS movement understands or agrees with the same principle. Just like there are some idiots in the Tea Party, there are some idiots in the OWS (my belief is that OWS represents chaos and anarchy more and therefore has gained a foothold with the college age and youth).

Our politicians are bought off because they allow themselves to be. It's not that big of a stretch to understand that many in the Tea Party represent stepping away from the things you indicate: crony capitalism, corporate control of the gov't, etc. I think the left doesn't like the idea of a smaller central government though, or the idea of cutting back on entitlement programs. I'm not sure however, it's just my opinion.

Michael Moore has become successful during the same timeframe that these evil companies have done what they have done (not all companies became successful by being evil of course). How is it good for the goose but not good for the gander? Political affiliation should not be the marker for determining what success is acceptable and what is not.

Michael Moore is fat, which usually means you have enough money to feed yourself at a level where you don't get skinny. That's certainly a level of success. Or maybe he has thyroid problems. Who knows?

I go back to my original point of politicians and individuals that are left wing oriented who want the betterment of society... helping out the poorest individuals. Individually or en masse, the minute they step up to the plate, drop all their deductions, loopholes, etc and deliver their tax liability to the general fund of the good ol US of A, I will accept their premise and think my own manner in dealing with my finances is less worthy than theirs. Until that point, they are just LINO's in disguise. The are politically liberal, but economically conservative.

Warren Buffet standing up and saying.... Hey, I pay less than my secretary!!! Well, that's just political grandstanding.

a- he paid much, much, much more than his secretary did. However, the percentage may have been lower. Albeit, he utilized every deduction and loophole known to man.

b- If he thinks its such a good idea, why doesn't he just pay more? In fact, to be such a good example, why doesn't he pay the percentage taxed by the US on corporations (35%) and then kick in extra because he believes its a good idea? He hasn't and he won't and therefore, why even consider his words as anything more than political blustering?

c- Warren Buffet is in charge of Berkshire Hathaway Holdings: A PUBLIC COMPANY!!!! (trading at +1% as we speak.... WOW $115K per share?? OUCH) He has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to ensure that it performs as well as possible. There's no way in hell he's going to short the earnings of the company! NONE! ZERO! ZIP! If he were to do it, the share price would drop or tank completely and his financial acumen would be considered garbage. He is succeeding off of the system he is critical of, you can't forget that.

Politically, they say what they say for votes and for nothing more. I want to believe in their ideas and thoughts quite often, but when you attach it to voting and how things really work, they are just full of it as well.

__________________
ICQ: 370 037 008